Space Marines - Redesign/Rules Development

[Vaaish]

Which should be enough to get you to sit up and listen rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

There are 3 core rules which should return to the basic/remain untouched. 1) Blast marker line of fire obstruction, 2) BFI against individual weapon systems and 3) sequential firing. Leave these 3 core rules as they were originally and we greatly improve tactical options for all fleets, particularly those using gunnery systems.

Don't base arguments on what you think rules should be rather than what they are and I will pay more attention. Your opinion is still just your opinion and has no authority over what the HA decide. I would agree with you on the BM rule change though.

Now, let's say you have a couple of Scythes in range and arc and have locked on... If he successfully braces then the IN player can then switch his lances to the other Scythe, effectively making the Necron player brace 2 ships. Neither a Dominator nor a Gothic could do this. Sure, a Gothic could split its firepower to try to make the 2 of them brace, but 2 lances are nowhere near as good against a braced Necron as 6WB

Why are you arguing bracing rules? And for that matter why are you arguing for a BOOST in the defensive options of arguably the most broken fleet? In any event, it's still the necron players prerogative if he decides to brace or not. Nothing is requiring him to do so. So what if neither the dominator or gothic could do this? They are different ship with different options available to them.

What we are discussing is how letting WB and BC or Gunz and heavy Gunz fire simultaneously affects the tactical options. You've made a point that allowing this change suddenly opens greater tactical options and makes mixed weapons far more beneficial. You haven't provided support for this and insist on arguing about how you think brace rules should operate. I'm arguing that the change to simultaneous fire of gunnery weapons does nothing of the sort precisely because nearly every other fleet already has mixed weapons that are far more efficient at doing what the marines gain from firing WB and BC simultaneously.


Nate, on the FM, there hasn't been a whole lot of chatter. I'd still go with all WB and a targeting matrix because it makes the thing much different from the ramilles and I think that dropping to 2-3 lances seems to just make the thing a ramilles variant rather than a new unit.

[lastspartacus]

Forgive my ignorance, what exactly is being argued here?

[horizon]

lol,
1) simultaneous firing heavy gunz/bombardment cannons with weapon batteries (check FAQ 2010).
2) The effect of that with BFI and such
3) Sigoroth's view on how he wishes the game to be and how Vaaish says that is another story, one has to focus on current rules
4) That Vaaish, Sigoroth and I agree that the original (first version) blastmarker rules should be installed (eg does not count as allround, thus only intervening on side from which fire came. Makes for better tactics). Actually, no one understood why they got changed in the first place.
edit: In our group we still use the original rules.

[Vaaish]

Sparticus, I think Sigoroth is arguing that SM shouldn't be able to fire WB and BC simultaneously based on the idea it's unfluffy because marines should be inefficient at space combat but he keeps bringing up how he thinks BFI should revert. On shooting, I believe this is incorrect. The lack of lances alone makes Marines inefficient at space combat and since the simultaneous fire only affects the first ship or squadron firing on a target it doesn't greatly change anything beyond providing a reason to keep ships in larger squadrons although there are significant drawbacks to doing this.

[lastspartacus]

See, marines may not be allowed lances, but that doesnt mean they would be any worse than normal humans at space combat.  It doesnt translate as well on the scale of massive space ships, and they do their best work on the ground, but each marine has an advanced and efficient mind.  They are experts at every method of transportation and weapon under their command.  Thus the +1 LD in space.

I think weapons should simul fire, but if so perhaps the entire fire sequence and who is fired apon should be declared before dice are rolled, for bfi purposes.

As to the old blast marker rules, I can see why they changed, but i can also see the blasts effecting that part of the ship. 

If someone wants them to go back to the old way, I would definitly be interested in hearing the logic behind it, becaue it sounds doable.

[Sigoroth]

Sparticus, I think Sigoroth is arguing that SM shouldn't be able to fire WB and BC simultaneously based on the idea it's unfluffy because marines should be inefficient at space combat but he keeps bringing up how he thinks BFI should revert. On shooting, I believe this is incorrect. The lack of lances alone makes Marines inefficient at space combat and since the simultaneous fire only affects the first ship or squadron firing on a target it doesn't greatly change anything beyond providing a reason to keep ships in larger squadrons although there are significant drawbacks to doing this.

Look, the BFI thing should be changed back to normal because the game is fundamentally sequential in nature. This shouldn't be messed with. A squadron of 4 Lunars could fire their 24 WBs at a target, see the results of the brace attempt, damage, crits, etc and then choose whether to fire their 8 lances at the same target or switch to another target. This is beneficial because the brace attempt may have succeeded and the rest of the firepower may be better spent elsewhere. Otherwise, if the brace attempt failed you could press on against the original target. In the old rules this would provide another brace opportunity. In the new rules you could press on with impunity. A squadron of 4 Dominators or 4 Gothics would be unable to wait before deciding. So the tactical flexibility of mixed weaponry was offset by the extra opportunity to brace. All fleets have mixed weaponry, yes. That isn't the point. Mixed weaponry squadrons shouldn't be that much more effective than their equally pointed and balanced pure weapon counterparts. Note that this is different from versatility. You could have a squadron of 4 Doms and one of 4 Gothics, giving fleet versatility, but this would not be as good as 2 squadrons of 4 Lunars, or 2 of 2/2 Goth/Dom. Surely that is just idiotic.

If only 1 brace attempt per squadron is allowed then ALL fire from that squadron should be declared before brace decisions are made. Then you could have your simultaneous fire. Of course, this would still be an insufficient balance fix to both Orks and SM as well as being completely uncharacteristic for both fleets, break core game mechanics and reduce tactical options. But apart from those I can't think of a single reason not to do it. Brilliant plan.

4) That Vaaish, Sigoroth and I agree that the original (first version) blastmarker rules should be installed (eg does not count as allround, thus only intervening on side from which fire came. Makes for better tactics). Actually, no one understood why they got changed in the first place.
edit: In our group we still use the original rules.

The BM rules were changed in response to BM placement manipulation after the introduction of massed turret rules. Those rules allowed ships in base contact to provide their counterparts +1 turret against ordnance. A balance to this new rule was that ships in base contact that came under direct fire shared shield hits, such that the blast marker was physically moved to touch both bases. This lead to people moving the BM out of LoF for subsequent ships shooting at the primary target. Hence the introduction of the stupid all-round BM rule.

This manipulation could have been fixed in a couple of different ways, both of which were better than the all-round BM rule. They could've ditched the shared shield hits idea for one, that would have been better. Or they could have had extra BMs placed in contact with the ships in base contact with the target, on a line from the shooting ship. Either of those would've done the trick.

[Vaaish]

If only 1 brace attempt per squadron is allowed then ALL fire from that squadron should be declared before brace decisions are made.

This I agree with. Actually, this is how things end up 90% of the time when we play anyway though we usually split it resolving the weapons fire in one arc before moving to another. I do, however, think you are attempting to make an issue of something that really isn't causing any problems. There are plenty of disadvantages to having large squadrons or taking mixed weapons: Loss of efficiency, lower strength of each type weapon than dedicated ships, squadron wide bracing, etc. Things like that balance it out and make this simply not an issue.

[Sigoroth]

This I agree with. Actually, this is how things end up 90% of the time when we play anyway though we usually split it resolving the weapons fire in one arc before moving to another. I do, however, think you are attempting to make an issue of something that really isn't causing any problems. There are plenty of disadvantages to having large squadrons or taking mixed weapons: Loss of efficiency, lower strength of each type weapon than dedicated ships, squadron wide bracing, etc. Things like that balance it out and make this simply not an issue.

If you don't think that it's an issue then you haven't played against very good opponents or with or against Necrons. Nevertheless, even if it were not an issue, as you claim, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to why we should break a core mechanic of the game. Presumably it is to provide SMs and Orks with a boost. Firstly, this is not a good enough boost. This will not solve the problems of those fleets. Secondly, the type of improvement (more efficient gunnery) goes against the grain for both these fleets. And thirdly, assuming that the discrepancies in the rules get sorted such that ships are forced to fire their weaponry simultaneously, rather than sequentially, then a balanced tactical arrangement will be removed from the game. If they aren't forced to fire simultaneously then the discrepancies will remain.

So, why the f*ck are we contemplating this stupid rule change again? Drop this idea, return bracing to each new incoming attack and, to give gunnery fleets a tactics based boost, return BM interference to LoF only. Give SMs the extra shield and some fleet variety. Give Orks more firepower. All sorted. All fluffy. Use of tactics encouraged. Why the hell are we messing around with stupid short-cut attempts when it could just be done right.

[Vaaish]

If you don't think that it's an issue then you haven't played against very good opponents or with or against Necrons. Nevertheless, even if it were not an issue, as you claim, you have provided no reason whatsoever as to why we should break a core mechanic of the game.

Dude, seriously. The fact that this is how the official, printed rulebook and online living rulebook state the BFI rule to be is reason enough that, despite what you may believe, it is the way this core mechanic now works and therefore we cannot be breaking it by playing as rulebook depicts.

Presumably it is to provide SMs and Orks with a boost. Firstly, this is not a good enough boost. This will not solve the problems of those fleets.

No one is expecting the change to gunnery weapons to solve the problems with SM, that is why we have this thread about the new Marine fleet lists that DOES deal with these problems (or at least attempts to).

Secondly, the type of improvement (more efficient gunnery) goes against the grain for both these fleets.

Ok, I'll entertain this for a moment. Why does it go against the grain for Marines? Please explain it clearly.

So, why the f*ck are we contemplating this stupid rule change again? Drop this idea, return bracing to each new incoming attack and...

I'll gather that this is in reference to the BFI rules? We aren't contemplating it, you keep ranting as if the current, official BFI rules have just been proposed.

[horizon]

/Of course everyone can use their own variations upon the official rules. But in the interest of discussing a current rule I think it is better to focus upon the current official rules.

[lastspartacus]

My personal opinion is simul fire should be allowed, but you should know what all is coming at you from a ship/squadron before you decide to brace, by the same logic.  But just let me know how to officially do it, whenever this discussion ends.  Gotten too confusing for me to keep up with :p

I just want normal space marine terminators at this point, and certain things with the SC.

Oh, and horizon.  What is your reasoning for going back to the old blast marker rules.  I'm not against the idea, I just want to know your thoughts on the logic/playability of it.

[KivArn]

With the BFI Issues,

I thought that the ship had a chance to brace before each weapon system fired, but only 1 chance total vs each ship/sqaudron. ie,

1 lunar fires weapons battery
2 target may try to brace
3 resolve weapons battery
4 lunar fires lances
5 if target braced or attempted to brace in 2, target may not brace otherwise target my attempt to brace
6 resolve lances

This limits the chances you can brace, but not the opportunities.?

Or have i missed something?

[Sigoroth]

Dude, seriously. The fact that this is how the official, printed rulebook and online living rulebook state the BFI rule to be is reason enough that, despite what you may believe, it is the way this core mechanic now works and therefore we cannot be breaking it by playing as rulebook depicts.

Sequential nature of game = core mechanic. Offensive player declares fire at target, defensive player chooses whether to brace = core mechanic. Allowing one player to declare some of his fire without giving the defending player an opportunity to brace breaks this mechanic. The fact that a good rule was changed to a bad rule does not in any way make it any less of a bad rule that broke the core mechanics of the game when it was introduced. The fact that it is being brought up in this context is due to the interrelatedness of this rule to the issue of simultaneous fire.

The point is that you can have the "brace against ship/squadron once" rule so long as all fire from that squadron is simultaneous or at least all declared before bracing is declared. You can have the sequential fire system whereby you're allowed to declare one system at a time only if you're allowed to brace against each new incoming wave of fire. These two rules are linked. So, you want to bring in the simultaneous fire idea. I massively dislike this idea, as it's pointless, unfluffy and breaks core mechanics. So, to bring the rules back into line I'd want the brace save changed back to every new incoming wave of fire. I find this method the most consistent with core game mechanics (no simultaneity at all) and the most balanced (mixed vs dedicated fire ships/squadrons). This is why I bring this rule up. Because it and the rule for which change is being proposed are linked.

So, for soooo many reasons (internal balance, core mechanics, fluff and motive for change) I don't want simultaneous fire. For consistency sake, and common sense, I want the brace rule changed back to how it was.

No one is expecting the change to gunnery weapons to solve the problems with SM, that is why we have this thread about the new Marine fleet lists that DOES deal with these problems (or at least attempts to).

Then why do it at all?

Ok, I'll entertain this for a moment. Why does it go against the grain for Marines? Please explain it clearly.

Serious? You not paid attention at all? The entire reason for the SMs to have 2 gunnery weapons instead of lances is BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHER! Why on earth would they not be allowed lances otherwise!? God knows it isn't to deny them a weapon that hits on 4+, since they already have that.

WBs + BCs are worse than WBs + Lances OR BCs + Lances when shooting against ships. However, when shooting at anything that counts as a defence then the WB/BC combination is better than either of the lance options. This is what SM ships were built for. So they have a combination of weapon systems that work worse (than the alternatives) against warfleets but better (than alternatives) against defences. Why would we want to change that?

Also to be considered is the impact of this rule on the other race with dual gunnery weapon system; the Orks. Sure, they need a boost. However, again instituting this rule would make their fire more efficient. This is un-Orky. When trying to increase the effectiveness of their firepower in 40k we wouldn't be increasing their weapon skill would we? That's what we'd be doing here. More hits from the same amount of guns. No, what we'd do there, and what we should do here is simply give them more gunz. Waaaaagh!

I'll gather that this is in reference to the BFI rules? We aren't contemplating it, you keep ranting as if the current, official BFI rules have just been proposed.

Er, no, it's in reference to this stupid simultaneous fire rule ...

[Sigoroth]

While we're considering simultaneous fire, why stop at the one ship? Why not the entire fleet? Surely they could all calculate a firing solution to shoot all at the one time if a single ship can do this for its disparate weaponry? Then the entire fleet could ignore BMs placed by shield impacts! Of course I don't believe that this is how it should be, but I don't get why we even want to consider this option.

It's just so contrary to the entire nature of the game. It does nothing but take away from the game, all in the name of a quick fix for some crap fleets. Jeez, just fix the crap fleets, don't d!ck around with the core rules.

[flybywire-E2C]

Then why do it at all?

Ok, I'll entertain this for a moment. Why does it go against the grain for Marines? Please explain it clearly.

Serious? You not paid attention at all? The entire reason for the SMs to have 2 gunnery weapons instead of lances is BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHER! Why on earth would they not be allowed lances otherwise!? God knows it isn't to deny them a weapon that hits on 4+, since they already have that.

WBs + BCs are worse than WBs + Lances OR BCs + Lances when shooting against ships. However, when shooting at anything that counts as a defence then the WB/BC combination is better than either of the lance options. This is what SM ships were built for. So they have a combination of weapon systems that work worse (than the alternatives) against warfleets but better (than alternatives) against defences. Why would we want to change that?

Also to be considered is the impact of this rule on the other race with dual gunnery weapon system; the Orks. Sure, they need a boost. However, again instituting this rule would make their fire more efficient. This is un-Orky. When trying to increase the effectiveness of their firepower in 40k we wouldn't be increasing their weapon skill would we? That's what we'd be doing here. More hits from the same amount of guns. No, what we'd do there, and what we should do here is simply give them more gunz. Waaaaagh!

Sigoroth, I understand why you feel the way you do, but in this one instance, you are wrong. They were absolutely NOT designed specifically to interfere with each other. The designers wanted the Space Marines to have a cool, unique weapon that was fluff-related to their job (planetary bombardment) and hit even harder than lances but used the weapon battery table to even itself out. It was an unintentional side effect that the Space Marines were forced to pick between one and the other, one not easy to fix by simply saying it ignored blast markers (which was one proposal) because doing so would have made it's attachment to the gunnery table pointless.

I know in a lot of occassions you think otherwise, but I assure you the HA's don't just sit around thinking of ways to break BFG.

- Nate